This volume is a collection of fifteen research
papers which were presented at the Sixth
International Conference on Contrastive
Linguistics, held in Berlin in 2010. It is part
of the series “Functional Linguistics.” The
book focuses on the contrast between different
languages (Dutch, English, French, German,
Italian, Spanish and Swedish) from discourse,
corpus and functional perspectives. It has
practical implications to readers interested in
contrastive linguistics, corpus linguistics,
discourse linguistics, functional linguistics,
language learning, etc.

The book is divided into four parts: studies of
discourse markers, information structure,
registers and genres, and phraseology.

The first article in the first section,
“Discourse Markers and Coherence Relations:
Comparison across markers, languages and
modalities,” by Maite Taboada and María de los
Ángeles Gómez González, analyzes how discourse
markers signal coherence, specifically
concession relations across written and spoken
genres in English and Spanish. The research
demonstrates that the types of coherence
relations used in discourse are more affected
by genres than by language.

“Pragmatic Triangulation and Misunderstanding:
A prosodic perspective,” by Jesús
Romero-Trillo, examines how “pragmatic
triangulation” as an efficient communicative
mechanism is manipulated by native and
non-native speakers of English through
discourse markers and their prosodic contours
in the communication. The study finds that both
groups of English speakers display differences
in pitch level when they pronounce the most
frequently used pragmatic markers in
conversations.

Anna-Britta Stenström, in “Spanish ‘Venga’ and
its English Equivalents: A contrastive study of
teenage talk,” compares how ‘venga’ -- the
frequently used Spanish discourse marker -- is
used in Madrid teenagers’ conversations with
how its English equivalents are employed in
London teenagers’ conversations. The research
shows that ‘venga’ performs multifunctional
roles in communication, and has more than one
equivalent in the English corpus. The best
matching English item is ‘come on’.

The fourth article, “Discourse Markers in
French and German: Reasons for an asymmetry,”
by Séverine Adam and Martine Dalmas, is based
upon a close observation of the usage and
functions of three discourse markers (‘dis
donc’, ‘tu vois’ and ‘écoute’) in French and
their potential correspondent items in German.
The study demonstrates that in addition to the
similarity that French and German share in the
use of these discourse markers, there are also
differences. For example, ‘dis donc’ in French
and ‘sag mal’ in German “have by far not
reached the same stage of pragmaticalization”
(p. 90), and furthermore, verbs in French “are
more likely than other units to be
pragmaticalized and also to reach a high degree
of pragmaticalization” (p. 90).

The second section, “Information Structure”, is
composed of five articles. The first is
“Thematic Parentheticals in Dutch and English”
by Mike Hannay and María de los Ángeles Gómez
González. The study contrasts thematic
parentheticals in English and Dutch at three
levels: syntactic, semantic and rhetorical. The
methods employed are both quantitative and
qualitative. The study reveals that the number
of thematic parentheticals used in English is
more than in Dutch, and in addition, apart from
the similar functions that they share, thematic
parentheticals in English and Dutch also have
differences related to genre and language. All
of this may be accounted for by the interaction
“between the syntactic features that a language
allows and the stylistic differences that arise
as a result” (Introduction, p. 6).

Jennifer Herriman’s article, “Word Order and
Information Structure in English and Swedish”,
claims that the principles of information and
end-weight are more strictly obeyed in Swedish
than in English. This is supported by empirical
evidence from a comparative study on fronting,
postponement and clefting in the two
languages.

The third paper is entitled “The Use of
It-Clefts in the Written Production of Spanish
Advanced Learners of English”, by Doval Suárez
and González Álvarez. This paper, utilizing a
corpus-based approach, makes a contrastive
study of it-clefts between NNS (Spanish
Advanced Learners of English) and NS (Native
English Speakers). The study indicates that
compared with NS, Spanish English learners have
an insufficient use of it-clefts, and on top of
that, the two groups differentiate from each
other in the discourse functions allocated to
it-clefts.

“Annotating Thematic Features in English and
Spanish: A contrastive corpus-based study” by
Jorge Arús Hita, Julia Lavid and Lara Moratón
presents a (semi)automatic annotation schema
for annotating themes. The authors first
discuss the problems of Halliday’s definition
of theme when analyzing Spanish clauses. Then
based on Lavid et al.’s (2010) model of
thematization, they put forward their way of
analyzing theme; that is, ideational theme is
separated into two parts: PreHead and Thematic
Head. Afterwards they depict the annotation
scheme and enact the annotation experiments. In
the end, the authors discuss the future work
that they have to do and the challenge that
they have to face.

The article “Topic and Topicality in Text: A
contrastive study of English and Spanish
narrative texts” by Raquel Hildalgo and Angela
Downing looks at the similarities and
differences in topic organization between
English and Spanish, and across genres. The
authors consider three aspects of Spanish and
English texts: ‘aboutness’ topics and frame
setting topics; the information status of
discourse referents; and classes of topics such
as New Topics, Given Topics, Subordinate Topics
and Resumed Topics. The analyses found that
both English and Spanish share much in common,
in spite of minor differences; for instance,
‘aboutness’ topics and frame-setting topics are
frequently-used topic scaffolding structures in
both languages; the distributional pattern of
informativity of discourse referents (i.e.
whether discourse referents are new or
accessible or given entities in discourse) is
similar in both languages; and classes of
topics are arranged in a way that conforms to
“the general principles of topic organization
and information structure” (p. 205).

The opening chapter of the third section is
“Towards a Comparison of Cohesive Reference in
English and German: System and text” by Kerstin
Kunz and Erich Steiner. In this study three
methods (system-based, corpus-based and
contrastive) are operative. The notion “system”
comes from systemic-functional linguistics: “A
system is a set of choices which are opened up
once an entry condition is satisfied; once one
choice has been made in the system, more
delicate choices are opened up” (Thompson &
Hunston 2010:6). A system-based approach,
complemented with a text-based approach, is
employed here to explore cohesive reference
from a functional/semantic perspective. When
the system is established, differences in
function (i.e. cohesion) and structures (i.e.
the formal features of cohesive devices) can be
identified, and the contrastive study of two
languages such as English and German can be
fully and systematically conducted. The
corpus-based approach is is used “in order to
gain a more comprehensive picture of the
distribution and function of cohesive devices
holding for texts produced in English and
German” (p. 233). The contrastive method is
shown to have advantages over the monolingual
method when the system of cohesive reference in
English and German is compared.

In “Genre- and Culture-specific Aspects of
Evaluation: Insights from the contrastive
analysis of English and Italian online property
advertising”, Gabrina Pounds argues that
contrastive analysis can be used to examine how
evaluation patterns correlate with genre and
cultural context. Through a contrastive
analysis of evaluative expressions in the genre
of online property advertising in English and
Italian, the author confirms that evaluation
patterns depend on both generic and cultural
aspects.

The article “Contrastive Analysis of Evaluation
in Text: Key issues in the design of an
annotation system for attitude applicable to
consumer reviews in English and Spanish” by
Maite Taboada and Marta Carretero develops an
annotation scheme for evaluation in text. The
authors, by making use of corpus analysis and
annotation in English and Spanish, specify how
to select and annotate spans of attitude in
text.

“An Annotation Scheme for Dynamic Modality in
English and Spanish” by Juan Rafael
Zamorano-Mansilla and Marta Carretero concludes
this section. In this study, the authors select
expressions in English and Spanish which can
express dynamic, epistemic and/or deontic
meaning, and simultaneously obtain 40 examples
of “prototypical expressions of dynamic
modality in English and Spanish” (p. 283) from
the BNC (British National Corpus) and the CdE
(Corpus del Español). Then, the authors
describe the results from experiments in which
two annotators annotate those 40 examples and
“inter-annotator agreement is measured” (p.
283), discussing the disagreement of the
annotators in annotating dynamic modality, and
factors that contribute to the disagreement.
Finally, they state that there are obvious
similarities and differences between the
annotators, and that the differences are caused
by the distinction between dynamic modality and
deontic or epistemic modality.

The last section consists of two articles
dealing with phraseology. Juan Pedro Rica
Peromingo’s article “Corpus Analysis and
Phraseology: Transfer of multi-word units”
serves as the starting-point. In this article,
the author takes the phraseological unit as the
target, and using corpus analysis, inquires
into the correlation between the mother tongue
and learners’ production of phraseological
expressions. The study shows that compared with
native speakers of English, non-native writers
have a stronger preference for using
phraseological units (equal to multi-word
units), such as ‘in conclusion’, ‘in other
words’, ‘in spite of that’, etc., and they tend
to over- or underuse certain lexical units
including such adverbs as ‘first’, ‘second’,
‘incidently’, and ‘now’.

“Lying as Metaphor in A Bilingual
Phraseological Corpus (German-Spanish)” by Ana
Mansilla also surveys phraseology. Its aim is
to single out different cognitive models for
the two languages. It takes an experiential
approach as the theoretical foundation and
phraseologisms as the empirical basis. By
making use of a bilingual onomasiological
corpus, it explores the conceptual metaphors
underlying a set of German and Spanish
phraseological expressions involving lying,
deceit and falsehood.

EVALUATION

Contrastive Analysis (CA) was established for
practical purposes, such as second (or foreign)
language teaching and learning, and
translation. So in its initial phase,
comparative and contrastive studies of two
languages were conducted mainly based on form
(i.e. at the phonological and morphological
level). However, CA also concerns the mapping
between form and function. In the 1980s and
1990s, with the development of such disciplines
as pragmatics, discourse studies, corpus
linguistics, etc., there emerged a “‘new wave’
of contrastive linguistics” (Introduction, p.
1), which differentiates itself from the
‘classic’ contrastive linguistics in many ways.
This “new wave” gives contrastive linguistics
broader areas of study, more theoretical
perspectives, and new methods.

“Contrastive Discourse Analysis” is a
significant work in this “new wave”. It marks
the birth of a new subdiscipline --
‘contrastive discourse analysis’. Although the
essays collected in this volume discuss diverse
subtopics, they share the following three
features: contrastive analysis, a discourse and
functional orientation, and corpus-based
analysis.

“Contrastive analysis” refers to the analysis
and study of two languages. All of the fifteen
articles in this collection adopt this
approach, studying differences and similarities
between two languages with the purpose of
providing insight to such applied disciplines
as foreign (or second) language teaching and
learning and translation studies. The result of
each study indeed exposes something ‘hidden’
behind two languages or two genres within the
same language. For instance, Taboada and Gómez
González compare markers in two languages
(English and Spanish) and across two different
genres (written and spoken). The analysis
reveals that the use of concessive relations is
similar across languages, but striking
differences occur in the two genres as well.
This study will be sure to have a facilitative
role for foreign or second language learners
and translators.

“Discourse and functional orientation” here
means that the studies in this volume take
functional approaches to discourse or discourse
analysis. The studies in this volume go beyond
the typical topic areas in contrastive
analysis, such as phonological, morphological,
lexical and syntactic similarities and
differences; instead what they emphasize is the
contrast between two or more languages in
discourse organization. Furthermore, the
studies take functional approaches to
discourse, ranging from studies on theme,
information structure, cohesion, and coherence
to pragmatic triangulation, pragmatic markers,
discourse functions of it-clefts, topic, genre
and register, evaluation, phraseology, and
metaphor. Such a discourse and functional
orientation brings richness to contrastive
analysis, giving the ‘classic’ contrastive
linguistics new life.

Finally, all of the studies in this book are
based on corpus analysis. The corpus-based
approach has matured and has achieved much in
the area of CA. In the articles, by relying
upon corpora, the authors intend to “reveal
major regularities underlying authentic
language use” (De Beaugrande 2001:113). These
corpus-based observations tend to be more
verifiable than any intuition-based
judgments.

The three characteristics that distinguish this
volume are intertwined with each other. For
example, Contrastive Analysis interacts with
discourse studies. On the one hand, CA serves
as a helpful method in the study of discourse,
which highlights the similar and dissimilar
types of discourse organization across
different languages. On the other hand,
discourse analysis has accumulated many
theoretical frameworks, research methodologies
and tools to analyze how sentences and
utterances are organized into a text or an
interaction, and these enrich contrastive
analysis. Furthermore, these two are not
independent of corpus analysis. The
availability of corpora rendered the resurgence
of contrastive work. The use of corpora opens
up new possibilities for comparing and
contrasting different languages in discourse
perspectives. And it is obvious that the three
characteristics co-exist in all the articles in
this volume, which provide examples for those
who are doing contrastive analysis with
discourse and functional perspectives. Even so,
this book still has one minor shortcoming,
which is that the languages compared or
contrasted are mostly Spanish and English (or
occasionally German). If more languages had
been included, this book would have been more
comprehensive, more representative and more
appealing to more readers.

All in all, this book, by presenting many
enlightening ideas and quite useful methods in
doing contrastive analysis, is really worthy of
reading, and is highly recommended.

Thompson, Geoff & Susan Hunston. 2010
[2006]. System and corpus: two traditions with
a common ground. In Geoff Thompson & Susan
Hunston (Eds.), System and corpus (pp. 1-14).
Beijing: World Publishing Corporation.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Meixia Li is full Professor of Linguistics in
the School of English Language, Literature and
Culture, Beijing International Studies
University. In 2002 she received her Ph.D.
degree from Beijing Normal University, in
China. Her research interests lie in
contrastive linguistics, discourse studies,
functional linguistics, cognitive linguistics
and corpus linguistics. She has published five
monographs and more than sixty academic
articles. Currently she is working on the
contrastive study of semantic prosody between
English and Chinese logical resultative
formulae.

This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise
$75,000. This money will go to help keep the
List running by supporting all of our Student
Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and
don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2014
site!

For all information on donating and pledging,
including information on how to donate by
check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer,
please visit: http://linguistlist.org/donation/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of
Eastern Michigan University and as such can
receive donations through the EMU Foundation,
which is a registered 501(c) Non Profit
organization. Our Federal Tax number is
38-6005986. These donations can be offset
against your federal and sometimes your state
tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more
information visit the IRS Web-Site, or
contact your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching
program, such that they will match any gift
you make to a non-profit organization.
Normally this entails your contacting your
human resources department and sending us a
form that the EMU Foundation fills in and
returns to your employer. This is generally a
simple administrative procedure that doubles
the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without
costing you an extra penny. Please take a
moment to check if your company operates such
a program.